ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark energy , dark matter , extraordinary claims , extraordinary proof , gravity , red shift , skepticism

Reply
Old 25th March 2008, 04:38 PM   #321
GreyICE
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,149
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
In general "mathematical models" are created to model actual reality. Therefore they have both credibility and usefulness.

Mathematicians though do not just do mathematical physics. The mathematical models used to describe reality are just a small part of mathematics. Thus there are things in mathematics that can’t be validated by actual reality because they do not occur in actual reality.
Example: Klein Bottle, the mobius strip's older brother.
GreyICE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2008, 06:06 PM   #322
Taffer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,530
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Abstract mathematical models may or may not accurately represent actual reality. The abstract mathematical models themselves are only abstract realities, not actual realities.
If you read carefully the post I liked, you will notice that actual real things, such as energy fields and various properties of reality, follow a structure related to a Mobius strip. How is that not validation of "abstract" math?
Taffer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2008, 06:20 PM   #323
m_huber
Muse
 
m_huber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 828
ynot, I think the way you are defining what is "concrete" vs. "abstract" makes everything we know fall into the category of "abstract."

Math accurately models what we can experience empirically. Math also makes predictions of things that we do not or can not experience empirically. The Mobius Strip is one such example. What we know about Black Holes gives us another example.

If you want to say that math is not "real," then you need to define what you think is "real." If you really want to go into the discussion, we will get into DesCartes and "I think, therefore I am."

While I'm posting I might as well mention: The evidence for time being a dimension is basically as strong as the evidence for width being a dimension.
__________________
"A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.
m_huber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2008, 07:39 PM   #324
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,578
Food for thought - thanks
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2008, 03:27 AM   #325
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
The mobius strip mathematical model has no actual existence. It’s not real. The paper model is the thing that’s real.
I am beggining to think that we need to label this line of argumentation, this is very similar to Zeuzzz and the magnetic reconnection thing. The reverse finger/moon argument just doesn't sound cool.

Sorry Ynot, just making a side bar here.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2008, 08:24 AM   #326
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
Will this sidetrack ever return to the expanding Universe? Stay tuned, pictures at 11.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2008, 11:08 AM   #327
m_huber
Muse
 
m_huber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
Will this sidetrack ever return to the expanding Universe? Stay tuned, pictures at 11.
As I recall, this discussion is all about whether or not dark matter/energy should fall into the "woo" category or the "science" category.

This is the same as asking if mathematics is "real." The models for physics that we have are based on empirical observation. If we extrapolate from the math of what we observe, then we are left with problems. These problems are fixed with a correction factor. We call this correction "dark matter." As the article in the OP points out, testing for this gives positive results (insomuch as we can test for it).

Thus the relevancy of this discussion.
__________________
"A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.
m_huber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2008, 11:11 AM   #328
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
The sidetrack about models and reality started with a raisin muffin being used to explain the expanding Universe. I'm not kidding.

It had little to do with dark matters, but did relate to dark energies.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2008, 11:46 AM   #329
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
No, it is a bran muffin or burrito which leads to the expanding universe, and the Big Poot.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2008, 11:51 AM   #330
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
I think there was also some discussion about the "real" shape of the Universe. Which led to this incredibly convoluted conversation which boils down to the claim that a mathematical model is more real than a strip of paper.

Or something like that.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2008, 10:09 AM   #331
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!!

This thread's last post was 26 March, 2008 ... I am raising it from its slumber ...

First, I want to correct something that was said about the middle of the thread: the first evidence of DM came NOT from galaxy rotation curves, but from application of the virial theorem by Zwicky, way back in the 1930s, to the Coma cluster of galaxies.

Second, the history of DM is by no means a nice, clear, straight line - as befits a story in which the players are human, there is jealousy, ego, arrogance, and much more; there are mistakes, wrong turns, misunderstandings, and so on. For example, Zwicky had a very strong personality, perhaps even a quite unattractive one, while Oort was the perfect gentleman (yet Zwicky was right and Oort wrong); Vera Rubin was a young, female, grad student (so her 'contrarian' findings on galaxy rotation had to await a senior male scientist's corroboration before they were accepted; note too the irony of her Princeton honorary degree); and so on. There are several good books which cover both the history and the evidence, the one by Ken Freeman for example.

Third, galaxy halos contain a trivial amount of DM, in the grand scheme of things; in (rich) galaxy clusters, the mass in between the galaxies is far greater than that in the galaxies, so even if, somehow, it turns out galaxies have little or no DM (highly unlikely), the large-scale ('universal') implications would be essentially nil. In fact, 'dark' baryonic matter (the kind of stuff stars, planets, gas, plasma, and dust are made of) considerably overwhelms the stuff that you can see with your eyes (or telescopes).

Fourth, no one in this thread has even sketched just how extraordinary the evidence for DM actually is ... and the marketing types who write breathless Press Releases (or articles in New Scientist), which robinson has so enthusiastically quoted, seem to have no interest in trying to explain this.

Take rich clusters, as just one example.

From measurements of the line of sight motion of galaxies, you can use high school physics to estimate the total mass in the clusters in which they reside; this is what Zwicky did, and has been done thousands of times since. That estimated mass is far, far greater than what you get if you simply add up the light from all those galaxies and estimate the mass of stars that must be producing it (adding in dust and gas/plasma in the galaxies makes no difference worth commenting on).

Fast forward many decades, and you learn that these same (rich) clusters of galaxies emit lots of x-rays. Apply textbook physics, undergrad level this time, and you discover that most of the (baryonic) mass in these clusters, again hundreds or thousands of them, is in the thin gas/plasma between the galaxies, not the galaxies themselves.

... and you learn that the total mass of the clusters is the same (to within the various uncertainties) as that you estimate from Zwicky-type observations!

... and that this total mass is ~5 times greater than the estimated baryonic mass.

Do not skip lightly over this; two completely independent methods of observation, using quite different parts of the physics textbook produce the same result! How extraordinary.

But wait! There's more!!

By painstakingly analysing the shapes of galaxies behind rich clusters, you can estimate the total mass in those clusters using yet another, completely independent method - gravitational lensing.

... and the results are, once again, the same: within the various uncertainties, the estimated mass of these clusters is the same as that derived from the virial theorem and from the x-ray observations (though there are, to date, only a handful of clusters analysed using this method).

... and that mass is, once again, ~5 times greater than the total estimated baryonic mass.

How extraordinary.

But wait!! There's more!!!

(to be continued)
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2008, 10:41 AM   #332
zosima
Muse
 
zosima's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by ben m View Post

It's more like you walking into my house and saying,

You: "Your dog has fleas."
Me: "Hang on, I've lived with this dog for ten years, I'm a doctor of veterinary medicine, and I did three separate flea tests over the past week."
You: "I dunno, lots of dogs have fleas, I bet your tests were wrong."
Me: "Shall I show you my test results?"
You: "Meh. Fleas are invisible anyway, you're probably missing them. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that your dog doesn't have a single flea."
Me: "Um? Fleas are not invisible."
You: "Oh yeah? How do you know? Someone who doesn't know that fleas are invisible and can teleport has no business making wild claims about flealess dogs."

Arrrrrrgh!
lololol
I just started reading the thread from the beginning and this is just hilarious!
zosima is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 06:03 AM   #333
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
(continued; an interlude)

One neat thing about gravitational lensing is that it can be used to independently test the results of studies on DM in (normal) galaxies based on quite different physics, galaxy rotation curves for example.

And here's one paper reporting such a result: "Weak Lensing with SDSS Commissioning Data: The Galaxy-Mass Correlation Function To 1/h Mpc"; there are many more (this paper alone has 117 citations, not all of the to do with weak lensing of galaxy halos).

With something as intriguing as DM, many researchers are keen as mustard to study it ... and some are also extremely keen to find a way to explain DM via some new physics, perhaps a new aspect of gravity for example, or some quirk of textbook physics that everyone has so far overlooked.

And so you would expect to find lots of papers with interesting ideas on what DM might be (other than some 'cold', very weakly interacting particles with mass), like the Cooperstock and Tieu one robinson cited earlier, for example.

And a few enjoyable minutes (or hours) browsing arXiv quickly confirms your expectation ... but also shows you that no one has come at all close yet to finding an explanation that does as good a job as DM in accounting for the observations ... except, perhaps, just maybe, some relativistic extention of MOND.

But wait!!! There's (even) more!!!!

(to be continued)
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 06:55 AM   #334
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
doppo

Last edited by DeiRenDopa; 8th April 2008 at 06:58 AM. Reason: doppo
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 06:56 AM   #335
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Suppose you simulate the evolution of a chunk of the universe, from a time astronomers call 'z = 127', to now, using textbook physics and cold dark matter (CDM) particles. Does the simulated chunk of universe end up looking like the part of the universe where we live?

The answer is yes (and there is some nice eye candy to enjoy as well).

How extraordinary ... the local universe looks just like a realistic simulation that includes the assumption that CDM is real!

But wait ... (boring; I'll turn it off)

Most readers of this post will surely have read about the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background, and perhaps how it was discovered (did you like the bit about pigeon droppings?), who got Nobel Prizes, a little satellite called COBE, and so on.

Many will also have read about how WMAP, another small satellite, observed the CMB for more than five years and a how bunch of über-geeks crunched the bazillions of individual data points to conclude that the universe is comprised of "4.6% Atoms and 23% Dark Matter" (one of the technical papers is here).

How extraordinary!

Fancy staring intently at the whole microwave sky, for five years, and coming up with a number that's the same as what you get if you measure the line of sight motion of a bunch of galaxies in the Coma cluster!

Here's another extraordinary thing: you absolutely need that 4.6% atoms to 23% CDM ratio in order to make sense of the abundance of deuterium, helium (both stable isotopes) and lithium (just one stable isotope), relative to ordinary hydrogen in the parts of the universe that haven't been through the guts of stars yet.

How extraordinary!

Who'd a thunk that one little innocent assumption (CDM) could make sense of so many bazillion observations of so many different kinds.

It must be magic.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 12:16 PM   #336
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,503
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
I think there was also some discussion about the "real" shape of the Universe. Which led to this incredibly convoluted conversation which boils down to the claim that a mathematical model is more real than a strip of paper.

Or something like that.
"Skepticism" can be hazardous to your mental health when applied improperly, robinson.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 12:28 PM   #337
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
There is a convergence of data that something like darm mattere exists... some people say it is boojum but they haven't presented a good alternative yet.

There has been a lot of handwaving and arm twirling, which perhaps is what accounts for the expansion of the universe.

I am personaly thrilled to think that there are things we don't understand and some we can't understand.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 12:50 PM   #338
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Suppose you simulate the evolution of a chunk of the universe, from a time astronomers call 'z = 127', to now, using textbook physics and cold dark matter (CDM) particles.
Neither link seems to supply the physics of DM particles. Could you explain what they are? Or is this a case where the simulation uses observed reality to reverse engineer what the properties are?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
"Skepticism" can be hazardous to your mental health when applied improperly, robinson.
I doubt that. Why do you think that is true?

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
There is a convergence of data that something like darm mattere[sic] exists...
Well, darm mattere is another story. I don't think anybody doubts that exist.

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I am personaly[sic] thrilled to think that there are things we don't understand and some we can't understand.
Hush yore mouth. If we don't understand it, we just need better maths.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 01:06 PM   #339
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
Neither link seems to supply the physics of DM particles. Could you explain what they are? Or is this a case where the simulation uses observed reality to reverse engineer what the properties are?
The physics of dark matter is that it does not omit radiation (is dark) and has mass (is matter). The model is looking at cold dark matter (slow moving) as opposed to hot dark matter (fast moving).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 02:01 PM   #340
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
Suppose you simulate the evolution of a chunk of the universe, from a time astronomers call 'z = 127', to now, using textbook physics and cold dark matter (CDM) particles.
Neither link seems to supply the physics of DM particles. Could you explain what they are? Or is this a case where the simulation uses observed reality to reverse engineer what the properties are?

(rest of post omitted)
.
Actually, the first link does ("supply the physics of DM particles") ... though I'd be the first to admit that it's not immediately obvious where!

Perhaps the best place to start would be the Supplement, which begins on p27 (you have to open the full paper, not the abstract; you can do this by clicking on PDF in the top right hand box, for example).

There's a fair bit about how they set about establishing the initial conditions, then on p30 you read the following:
Quote:
Dynamical evolution. The evolution of the simulation particles under gravity in an expanding background
is governed by the Hamiltonian

(equation omitted)

where H = H(p1, . . . , pN, x1, . . . , xN, t). The xi are comoving coordinate vectors, and the corresponding canonical momenta are given by pi = a2mixi. The explicit time dependence of the Hamiltonian arises from the evolution a(t) of the scale factor, which is given by the Friedman-Lemaitre model that describes the background cosmology.

(part skipped)

The density distribution function δε (x) of a single particle is spread over a finite scale ε, the gravitational softening length. The softening is necessary to make it impossible for hard binaries to form and to allow the integration of close particle encounters with low-order integrators. We use a spline kernel to soften the point mass, given by δε (x) = W(|x|/2.8ε ), where
W(r) = 8(1−6r2 +6r3)/π for 0 ≤ r < 1/2, W(r) = 16(1−r)3/π for 1/2 ≤ r < 1, and W(r) = 0 otherwise. For this choice, the Newtonian potential of a point mass at zero lag in non-periodic space is −Gm/ε, the same as for a ‘Plummer-sphere’ of size ε, and the force becomes fully Newtonian for separations larger than 2.8ε. We took ε = 5h−1kpc, about 46.3 times smaller than the mean particle separation.

(there's more)
.

That's (part of) the physics (actually one symbol doesn't show properly; there's a dot over the xi in pi = a2mixi).

Would you like someone to have a go at explaining this physics without symbols and equations?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 05:48 PM   #341
dogjones
Graduate Poster
 
dogjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,303
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
.
Actually, the first link does ("supply the physics of DM particles") ... though I'd be the first to admit that it's not immediately obvious where!

Perhaps the best place to start would be the Supplement, which begins on p27 (you have to open the full paper, not the abstract; you can do this by clicking on PDF in the top right hand box, for example).

There's a fair bit about how they set about establishing the initial conditions, then on p30 you read the following:.

That's (part of) the physics (actually one symbol doesn't show properly; there's a dot over the xi in pi = a2mixi).

Would you like someone to have a go at explaining this physics without symbols and equations?
Yes please, if possible!
__________________
It's great being ideologically flexible.
dogjones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2008, 06:36 PM   #342
robinson
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,067
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
.
Actually, the first link does ("supply the physics of DM particles") ... though I'd be the first to admit that it's not immediately obvious where!
I'm going to leave it to the really smart physics dudes here to explain why those equations are not a description of the physical properties of Dark Matter.
robinson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 12:30 AM   #343
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
I'm going to leave it to the really smart physics dudes here to explain why those equations are not a description of the physical properties of Dark Matter.
.
One thing at a time, if you don't mind.

Earlier, you said: "Neither link seems to supply the physics of DM particles. Could you explain what they are?", and I answered by pointing to a part of the paper.

Do you think the extracts from the paper I quoted (plus the full context that I did not quote) tells you where, in the first link, "the physics of DM particles" is supplied?

In any case, how would you go about deciding whether material such as that I quoted (or any other material for that matter) is "the physics of DM particles" or not?

dogjones, I'll reply to your post later today.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 04:52 AM   #344
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,503
Originally Posted by robinson View Post
Quote:
"Skepticism" can be hazardous to your mental health when applied improperly, robinson.
I doubt that. Why do you think that is true?
Because you are a shining example. Doubting everyone and everything is not skepticism. It is cynicism. And how can that help anyone ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 08:15 AM   #345
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
.

In any case, how would you go about deciding whether material such as that I quoted (or any other material for that matter) is "the physics of DM particles" or not?
I get out my rock quartz on a mithril chain and hold it over the document or monitor if it rotates to the right then it is a good document, if it rotates to the left then then it is a bad document.

Actualy i will do a citation serach or just Google the name of the author and see what other poeple have to say.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 08:22 AM   #346
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by dogjones View Post
Yes please, if possible!
.
Introductory caveat: the following is my first attempt, in this forum, to summarise in a few hundred words something as general and technical as the material in the Millennium Simulation paper. It will inevitably contain inaccuracies, over-simplifications, and so on. However, I hope it will not be too misleading or distort the relevant physics and models too much. I would very much like sol invictus, ben m, and zosima, who have (I think) indicated that they are professional physicists, and MattusMaximus, who has (I think) indicated that he is a science teacher, to comment on it, pointing especially to parts that they think are wrong, seriously misleading, or badly incomplete.

There are three domains at play in the part of the paper we are discussing, physics, mathematics, and computing science (numerical simulation). They are, of course, closely inter-woven, so it is not always easy to talk about each separately … but I'll try. In this post, I will not address the simulation aspects; if anyone's interested, I'd be happy to have a go at doing so later (or maybe someone else would like to?)

The physics which is explicitly used in the paper is Newton's three laws of motion, Newtonian gravity, and General Relativity (GR). Since Newton's day, a great deal of work has been done to express the three laws, and Newtonian gravity, in more general mathematical forms; three conservation laws thus encompass the three laws of motion – conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum.

There is a long tradition of how these parts of physics (and others, of course) are expressed in symbolic form, such as the use of the symbol t for time, and the use of bold to mean a vector quantity; this paper follows convention, making it relatively easy to connect what's in the paper to earlier work on systems of particles interacting via gravity (due to their mass), and to earlier work on universes where GR rules. This earlier work can be found in the papers explicitly cited, and in standard physics textbooks.

So, what this simulation does is start with a lot of 'point masses' (particles) - ~10 billion of them – distributed throughout a cube in a particular way (the xi at t = 0) and with particular velocities (the xi with a dot over the x at t = 0). The i-th particle has a mass of mi.

The particles are cold, dark matter (CDM): 'dark' because the only way they interact with each other is via gravity due to their mass; 'cold' meaning that none ever has a speed large enough to require (special) relativity (SR) to describe their motion (another way to say this is that the simulation does not include the physics of SR).

The CDM particles interact with each other, and the chunk of the universe 'evolves'. The only interactions are each particle's gravitational effect on every other particle.

How does GR enter into the simulation? That’s "the background cosmology". If you assume an isotropic, homogeneous universe in which GR rules, you have the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric as an exact solution to the Einstein field equations (of GR). That’s also why xi are called the 'comoving coordinate vectors', and that's how the scale factor (a(t)) enters the picture.

How the model represents – accurately - the effect of the gravity of each of the particles on all the others, and how all those particles move – accurately - as a result, as this chunk of Friedmann-Lemaître model universe evolves (t increases), is the numerical simulation part; needless to say, there are quite a lot of really, really neat things involved in this!
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 09:52 AM   #347
damccut
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 29
Robinson, I don't know if you saw the Ultrawave Theory post called "free book", but I think you would find it interesting. I took the first part of my book about particle theory (which supplies tests for provability) and extrapolated it to the entire universe. The results are that almost all of your extraordinary claims are explained in new terms that do not require any unusual new items like dark matter or dark energy that are created with unusual matter or energy; they are merely ones we already know about.
damccut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 10:02 AM   #348
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by damccut View Post
Robinson, I don't know if you saw the Ultrawave Theory post called "free book", but I think you would find it interesting. I took the first part of my book about particle theory (which supplies tests for provability) and extrapolated it to the entire universe. The results are that almost all of your extraordinary claims are explained in new terms that do not require any unusual new items like dark matter or dark energy that are created with unusual matter or energy; they are merely ones we already know about.
.
So, would you care to share with all readers of this thread just how this amazing (so-called) theory accounts for all the extraordinary evidence (astronomical observations) posted earlier in this thread?

Or, perhaps, you'd care to comment on a not unreasonable inference drawn from your posting: you are here to promote/market something that you are not prepared to even answer questions on, much less engage in discussion about, based on critical thinking?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 10:05 AM   #349
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,225
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Because you are a shining example. Doubting everyone and everything is not skepticism. It is cynicism. And how can that help anyone ?
Skepticism is not doubting everything. It is not believing something unless it is proved.
Robinson seems on the verge of being proof of the old statement about if you don;t believe in something you will end up falling for anything.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2008, 10:39 AM   #350
dogjones
Graduate Poster
 
dogjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,303
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Because you are a shining example. Doubting everyone and everything is not skepticism. It is cynicism. And how can that help anyone ?

Actually, doubting everyone and everything IS skepticism. Just a rather extreme and not a particularly useful variant thereof.

Cynicism is an ethic/viewpoint based on the assumption that everyone is solely acting in self-interest.
__________________
It's great being ideologically flexible.
dogjones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 05:18 AM   #351
damccut
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
.
So, would you care to share with all readers of this thread just how this amazing (so-called) theory accounts for all the extraordinary evidence (astronomical observations) posted earlier in this thread?

Or, perhaps, you'd care to comment on a not unreasonable inference drawn from your posting: you are here to promote/market something that you are not prepared to even answer questions on, much less engage in discussion about, based on critical thinking?
Although I did not intend to come back here, these darn emails keep coming...
Look, I could spend hours, days, years or forever trying to rewrite the whole book for you, but I not going to do that. All that I have stated is contained in the book, you only have to read it. Why do you think it is a book? My first attempt to publish to physical review was too short and still didn't have enough information to convince the reviewer to even read past the abstract. It is amazing to me that a theory that can explain all of the strange ideas we are currently stuck with in a coherent, physical way can be so easily dismissed. So far all of you who have commented only read enough to make a comment about some meaningless aspect of the wording (although it did help me make some changes to the site info). If there is something so powerful as to combine quantum mechanics and relativity, I would think that you would like to know about it. Unless any of you ask some specific question that is not addressed in the book, I cannot waste any more time revisiting what you can read already.
damccut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 06:27 AM   #352
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by damccut View Post
Although I did not intend to come back here, these darn emails keep coming...
Look, I could spend hours, days, years or forever trying to rewrite the whole book for you, but I not going to do that. All that I have stated is contained in the book, you only have to read it. Why do you think it is a book? My first attempt to publish to physical review was too short and still didn't have enough information to convince the reviewer to even read past the abstract. It is amazing to me that a theory that can explain all of the strange ideas we are currently stuck with in a coherent, physical way can be so easily dismissed. So far all of you who have commented only read enough to make a comment about some meaningless aspect of the wording (although it did help me make some changes to the site info). If there is something so powerful as to combine quantum mechanics and relativity, I would think that you would like to know about it. Unless any of you ask some specific question that is not addressed in the book, I cannot waste any more time revisiting what you can read already.
.

So here's another email for you ...

When you have written a paper on how your idea can account for the billions of high quality astronomical observations that underlie the conclusions regarding 'non-baryonic cold dark matter' and 'dark energy', and have got it up on arXiv, why not drop back here with a link to that paper?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 03:32 PM   #353
damccut
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
.

So here's another email for you ...

When you have written a paper on how your idea can account for the billions of high quality astronomical observations that underlie the conclusions regarding 'non-baryonic cold dark matter' and 'dark energy', and have got it up on arXiv, why not drop back here with a link to that paper?

Where is the link to all of your important work?
If you bothered to read my book, you would see that it is merely a new theory of matter. But for that theory to be true requires several other things to be true.
1. Einstein was wrong with his energy theory; E does not equal mc^2.
2. Einstein was wrong about c being the speed limit of the Universe.
3. Einstein was wrong about the reasons for relativity.
4. Most of quantum theory is based on wrong assumptions.
5. All particles have mass at all times, which leads to the non-existence of DM and DE.

Yeah, I know it all sounds impossible, but it isn't.
I truly believe that anyone who is afraid of reading "Ultrawave Theory" is really afraid that they will not be able to understand it. It is actually quite simple and makes much more sense that anything else out there today. When you do want to ask a pointed question of detail, not some generalization, ask away.
Besides, they are no different from you; read abstract, knee-jerk reaction of "no way", quick reject. Been there done that.
damccut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 04:10 PM   #354
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by damccut View Post
It is amazing to me that a theory that can explain all of the strange ideas we are currently stuck with in a coherent, physical way can be so easily dismissed.
I'm dismissing it because the statements in your overview regarding nuclear physics are wrong. Oh and also your statements re. particle physics, quantum mechanics, astronomy and relativity too.

Quote:
Where is the link to all of your important work?
You first.

Quote:
If you bothered to read my book, you would see that it is merely a new theory of matter. But for that theory to be true requires several other things to be true.
1. Einstein was wrong with his energy theory; E does not equal mc^2.
2. Einstein was wrong about c being the speed limit of the Universe.
3. Einstein was wrong about the reasons for relativity.
4. Most of quantum theory is based on wrong assumptions.
5. All particles have mass at all times, which leads to the non-existence of DM and DE.
If you bothered to learn any physics you'd know you were talking complete and utter nonsense.

Quote:
Yeah, I know it all sounds impossible, but it isn't.
Well, I'm convinced by that argument. Lets throw out all of 20th century physics in favour of damccut's book.

Quote:
I truly believe that anyone who is afraid of reading "Ultrawave Theory" is really afraid that they will not be able to understand it.
Where did anyone say they were afraid to read it?

Quote:
It is actually quite simple and makes much more sense that anything else out there today.
Modest too I see.

Quote:
When you do want to ask a pointed question of detail, not some generalization, ask away.
Ok... are you seriously suggesting that atomic nuclei aren't made up of protons and neutrons?

Quote:
Besides, they are no different from you; read abstract, knee-jerk reaction of "no way", quick reject. Been there done that.
The overview was more than enough to suggest you won't be winning the Nobel prize anytime soon.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2008, 05:47 PM   #355
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by damccut View Post
Where is the link to all of your important work?
If you bothered to read my book, you would see that it is merely a new theory of matter. But for that theory to be true requires several other things to be true.
1. Einstein was wrong with his energy theory; E does not equal mc^2.
2. Einstein was wrong about c being the speed limit of the Universe.
3. Einstein was wrong about the reasons for relativity.
4. Most of quantum theory is based on wrong assumptions.
5. All particles have mass at all times, which leads to the non-existence of DM and DE.

Yeah, I know it all sounds impossible, but it isn't.
I truly believe that anyone who is afraid of reading "Ultrawave Theory" is really afraid that they will not be able to understand it. It is actually quite simple and makes much more sense that anything else out there today. When you do want to ask a pointed question of detail, not some generalization, ask away.
Besides, they are no different from you; read abstract, knee-jerk reaction of "no way", quick reject. Been there done that.

I agree with Tubbythin - you really should learn some basic physics before debunking all modern physics.
  1. E = mc2 is tested in many experiments. How do you think that the sun works? Ever hear of nuclear power?
  2. Having c as the "speed limit of the Universe" gives us Special Relativity, the predictions of which have been tested by many experiments.
  3. It is funny that his wrong reasons give theories that actually work.
  4. These "wrong assumptions" produce some of the most accurate calculations in physics.
  5. All particles have energy. Some particles (photons) do not have rest mass. The mass of all particles varies with their speed. This has to be taken account of in high energy physics.
Unfortunately we have "been there done that" before with other crackpot theories. My standard response is: Give us some testable predictions that are not produced by standard physics.

What are the testable predictions of Ultrawave Theory?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2008, 08:12 AM   #356
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by damccut View Post
5. All particles have mass at all times, which leads to the non-existence of DM and DE.
Um , sure. Is that what you really want to say?

DM has mass otherwise it would not create gravitational attraction.

It is weakly interacting with the EM force, which is why it doesn't clump up or shine.

What did you mean to say?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2008, 09:55 AM   #357
damccut
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 29
I'll answer these questions plus some in other threads here rather than spread myself thin.
First, I have studied physics and engineering for forty years, so don't expect any of the silly non-physicist mistakes most people make. Since I am not a writer, that may be where most of the communication problems arise with trying to explain my theory.
Second, because you won't take the time to read the whole of the book it makes things more difficult because I have to reiterate things that are already well explained.

Let's try this: There is no such thing as E as defined by Einstein so substitute L=mv or p=mv, or whatever nom de plume you wish for momentum. The ultrawave that creates a particle is traveling at the 9E+16 m/s velocity, so when two of them collide a lot happens very quickly. This is the entire basis for nuclear interactions and the reason we do not need E. It is a very reasonable expectation that an electron turns into a photon because it is knocked out of it ability to form a torus (which is the shape of spin-1/2 particles) and travels in a criss-crossing waveform at the material speed limit of c, since it is attached to a brane with that velocity. We cannot directly detect the Cc velocity in our 3D world; we only see the string/brane combinations that are 3D. So, matter has a limit of c, waves a limit of Cc, and all quantum behavior is easily explained by both the motion of the Cc traveling waves, and the c traveling (converted matter) particles.

If current theories didn't produce the correct numerical answer then they would not have been accepted, so that is why they are used. Unfortunately, Einstein misinterpreted the observed material limit of c and applied it to the observed energy that required something on the order of c^2 and made what seemed the logical step of restating the observations as E=mc^2. If he had any reason to believe that a velocity like Cc could exist he would have came to the same conclusion as I did. I have only dropped the idea that E does not exist at all in the last year; I tried like heck to make UT work with E and with Planck's constant for years and all it got me was the first reject from physical review in 2000 or 2001. All they could say was that no one was looking down any of the roads I was following, so why bother? (not in those words of course). By the time I amassed enough evidence that I was sure that I had not made a mistake, the volume of work was so great that it begged to become a book and that is where it stands now. BTW, you don't need references for a book, besides anything that I felt required additional info. had the name or link included.

Yes, I am suggesting that some nuclei are particles based on the fact that spin-1/2 particle magnetic moments mesh perfectly with spin-1/2 nuclei magnetic moments, i.e. chapter six, and support the reasoning that all other spin types are probably created similarly, meaning not with protons and neutrons as original particles.

Of course DM has mass, that is why it helps hold galaxies together. All I'm saying is that it is normal matter such as neutrinos and photons (converted electrons). I'm not trying to change any evidence in any aspect of the universe we observe, merely the explanations for those observations. If there are any true faults with my logic, I haven't found them. If you would read all of the book then comment, I would sure be more willing to listen. Right now you sound just as ignorant to me as you believe I must be. It's like looking at where I was a decade ago.
damccut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2008, 10:21 AM   #358
m_huber
Muse
 
m_huber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by damccut View Post
I'll answer these questions plus some in other threads here rather than spread myself thin.
First, I have studied physics and engineering for forty years, so don't expect any of the silly non-physicist mistakes most people make. Since I am not a writer, that may be where most of the communication problems arise with trying to explain my theory.
Second, because you won't take the time to read the whole of the book it makes things more difficult because I have to reiterate things that are already well explained.

Let's try this: There is no such thing as E as defined by Einstein so substitute L=mv or p=mv, or whatever nom de plume you wish for momentum. The ultrawave that creates a particle is traveling at the 9E+16 m/s velocity, so when two of them collide a lot happens very quickly. This is the entire basis for nuclear interactions and the reason we do not need E. It is a very reasonable expectation that an electron turns into a photon because it is knocked out of it ability to form a torus (which is the shape of spin-1/2 particles) and travels in a criss-crossing waveform at the material speed limit of c, since it is attached to a brane with that velocity. We cannot directly detect the Cc velocity in our 3D world; we only see the string/brane combinations that are 3D. So, matter has a limit of c, waves a limit of Cc, and all quantum behavior is easily explained by both the motion of the Cc traveling waves, and the c traveling (converted matter) particles.

If current theories didn't produce the correct numerical answer then they would not have been accepted, so that is why they are used. Unfortunately, Einstein misinterpreted the observed material limit of c and applied it to the observed energy that required something on the order of c^2 and made what seemed the logical step of restating the observations as E=mc^2. If he had any reason to believe that a velocity like Cc could exist he would have came to the same conclusion as I did. I have only dropped the idea that E does not exist at all in the last year; I tried like heck to make UT work with E and with Planck's constant for years and all it got me was the first reject from physical review in 2000 or 2001. All they could say was that no one was looking down any of the roads I was following, so why bother? (not in those words of course). By the time I amassed enough evidence that I was sure that I had not made a mistake, the volume of work was so great that it begged to become a book and that is where it stands now. BTW, you don't need references for a book, besides anything that I felt required additional info. had the name or link included.

Yes, I am suggesting that some nuclei are particles based on the fact that spin-1/2 particle magnetic moments mesh perfectly with spin-1/2 nuclei magnetic moments, i.e. chapter six, and support the reasoning that all other spin types are probably created similarly, meaning not with protons and neutrons as original particles.

Of course DM has mass, that is why it helps hold galaxies together. All I'm saying is that it is normal matter such as neutrinos and photons (converted electrons). I'm not trying to change any evidence in any aspect of the universe we observe, merely the explanations for those observations. If there are any true faults with my logic, I haven't found them. If you would read all of the book then comment, I would sure be more willing to listen. Right now you sound just as ignorant to me as you believe I must be. It's like looking at where I was a decade ago.
You are aware that this is a skeptics forum, not a physics forum? What do other physicists have to say about your book?

Incidentally, you might want to re-post your comment on one of the shorter threads that you are involved in if you want to involve more people.
__________________
"A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.
m_huber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2008, 11:32 AM   #359
damccut
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by m_huber View Post
You are aware that this is a skeptics forum, not a physics forum? What do other physicists have to say about your book?

Incidentally, you might want to re-post your comment on one of the shorter threads that you are involved in if you want to involve more people.
Precisely why I am here. If there is a chink in the armor I would like to find out before I get too involved in trying to promote this theory. The trouble is that I see no reason that a simple idea should work so perfectly to give a physical description of particles if it is wrong. Heck, if nothing else it is an easy way to look at particles without all the complex math now used.

And to clarify above. While some interaction instances may provide a momentum equal to m*Cc, for usual particle destruction it is L=1/2mvr, where v=Cc.
damccut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2008, 12:01 PM   #360
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by damccut View Post
Precisely why I am here. If there is a chink in the armor I would like to find out before I get too involved in trying to promote this theory.
I've discovered a tiny chink in your theory. Not much but you may want to sort it out. Here you say...

"Yes, I am suggesting that some nuclei are particles based on the fact that spin-1/2 particle magnetic moments mesh perfectly with spin-1/2 nuclei magnetic moments"

This implies the entirety of nuclear physics is wrong.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.